Your Opinion

Social Services is currently excepting applications for the Cooling Assistance program. I thought this program would be a life saver for me because I have bills as high a

Cooling program no help for one local family

To the Editor:

Social Services is currently excepting applications for the Cooling Assistance program. I thought this program would be a life saver for me because I have bills as high as $507 a month and I'm a divorced mother of five sons.

I work full time but times are hard on everyone nowadays. I was late too many times and Dominion Power added an additional $500 deposit to my account, so that now makes my regular $500 bill $1,000.

I went to my local Social Services for help with all the proper paperwork and was told back on July 2nd that they would not be able to help me by my cutoff, which was July 17th. I was then told that the program is not for people with a crisis but it is only for cooling assistance.

I was very confused by this - this program is suppose to help those in need keep their lights on but the people who work for Social Services have attitudes and we don't care if your lights get caught off grimaces on their faces.

I even went as far as to pay a majority of the bill and took them the actual receipt but I still have yet to get a letter or a phone call saying they would help and it's now July 20th. My gripe is this: Why set up programs that suppose to help those who need it then throw them to the wayside and not give two thoughts as to whether or not that family will become a statistic by losing power and having to burn candles, which could cause a fire like so many tragic stories we've seen on the news or read in the paper?

Social Services in Petersburg is a real let down when it comes to helping the community.

Tonia Phillips

Petersburg

AP article sensationalized decommissioning funds for nuclear plants

To the Editor:

The Associated Press article referenced in your July 5 editorial ("Covering the cost of old nuclear plants") was a sensationalized depiction of the current status of decommissioning funds for U.S. nuclear energy facilities.

The tack that AP could have taken is this: Despite the nation's worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, more than 70 percent of the nation's nuclear reactors continue to meet federal guidelines for expected funding levels at this point in the plants' operations. And even though a minority of funds is currently below the expected funding levels, it is anticipated that virtually all of these facilities will continue to operate and accrue decommissioning funds into the 2030s and beyond.

Energy companies have funded every power reactor that has been or is being decommissioned and have safely performed decommissioning activities.

Instead, two AP reporters penned a sensationalized account focusing on the less-than-shocking news that market-based decommissioning funds haven't been immune to the financial crisis. For the minority of funds that are not at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's desired level, companies have been asked how they plan to resolve the problem.

Most nuclear power plants will operate to 2030 and beyond, so there will be an extended time horizon to assure sufficient decommissioning funding. Fifty-four of the nation's 104 operating reactors have received license extensions-including those at Dominion's North Anna and Surry power stations.

AP made much of the fact that 19 closed plants, with the NRC's approval, are in a safe storage status that may extend up to 60 years before a plant is actually dismantled. This approach is appropriate both for financial reasons (i.e., allowing further maturation of decommissioning funds) and safety reasons. In reality, it is among the most sensible approaches, backed by federal regulators.

Scott Peterson

Vice President

Nuclear Energy Institute

Washington D.C.

Time to look at health impact of Hopewell's air

To the Editor:

If I may clarify some of the statements attributed to me in your recent article "Many Air Concerns on City's Pollution". I spoke of the industrial workers knowing the health risk associated with their jobs, yet the general public not being aware of the risks of living near the industries. My lung damage was not severely irritated , it was chemically burned. The blood on the cash was in relation to the industry stockholders, not council.

Our industrial progress has taken a toll on all of us. It is time to take a hard look at the known short term and long term health effects. Those old folks who don't believe that they have been effected were not growing children when many of toady's chemicals were being released. The small, growing bodies of children are much more affected, leading to earlier disease.

Don't think I'm the only one who believes this. Ask your friends and family who have early and rare cancers, kidney disease, and lung disease. And ask the epidemiologists.

Submit Content

Market Place

Social Media

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
The Progress-Index ~ 15 Franklin Street, Petersburg, VA 23803 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service